Oldest Galaxies

[eisenreich]

Nobody knows for certain how old the universe is, although it probably lies between 6000 and 7000 years as different versions of scripture seem to indicate.

These folks would disagree with you:
Egypt's Oldest Known Art Identified, Is 15,000 Years Old

There is "little doubt" the engravings are 15,000-years-old, Huyge said. They depict a now extinct species of wild cow whose horns have been recovered from Paleolithic settlements nearby.

The drawings would be examined for lichens and organic grime called "varnish rind" that could be carbon dated or subjected to another process known as uranium series dating, Huyge added. Because the rocks are inorganic, they cannot be dated directly using these methods.


​

 

[Letsargue]

What are you even talking about?

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't think you can understand something a bit complicated.
Peace.

---Paul---

 

[Vern Reed]

A question to Bob B:

"If your viewpoint (and one that is shared by a small, small minority) is so compelling, and if it can be pushed forward as a viable and superior theory relating how all was created, why is it not in standard textbooks, scientific journals, classrooms, TV, radio or any other medium, being discussed on merit as a genuine alternative to the current paradigm?"

 

[bob b]

A question to Bob B:

"If your viewpoint (and one that is shared by a small, small minority) is so compelling, and if it can be pushed forward as a viable and superior theory relating how all was created, why is it not in standard textbooks, scientific journals, classrooms, TV, radio or any other medium, being discussed on merit as a genuine alternative to the current paradigm?"

The current view among scientists is that a theory must be "naturalistic" to be a proper subject for scientific investigation.

Thus, the Genesis idea that God created the universe and first life must be rejected by scientists researching these topics.

 

[bob b]

The drawings would be examined for lichens and organic grime called "varnish rind" that could be carbon dated or subjected to another process known as uranium series dating, Huyge added. Because the rocks are inorganic, they cannot be dated directly using these methods

Science 26 June 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5372, pp. 2132 - 2139
Technical Comments

Ambiguities in Direct Dating of Rock Surfaces Using Radiocarbon Measurements

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempt was made to date rock surfaces with accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon measurements of rock varnishes or rock weathering rinds. In two case studies, samples pretreated in the laboratory of Dr. Ronald Dorn prior to AMS analysis have been found to contain significant quantities of carbon-rich materials of two distinct classes. Type I material resembles coal, whereas type II material resembles pyrolized wood charcoal fragments. In samples where these type I and type II materials were separated and AMS-radiocarbon dated, they were found to have widely differing radiocarbon ages. In these cases, the measurement of the radiocarbon age of the entire sample would yield results that are, at best, ambiguous. Neither type I nor type II materials were found in comparable samples that were independently prepared.

----------

Dating in Exposed and Surface Contexts by Charlotte Beck
Author(s) of Review: Ronald H. Towner
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 396-398

…

“Such a calibration (of other methods) ignores the problems associated with radiocarbon dates and their relevance to target dates”

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't think you can understand something a bit complicated.
Peace.

---Paul---

That's funny. You're the one posting pure garbage as though it had some merit as science, but hey- suit yourself, imbecile.

 

[bob b]

I would appreciate it if posters would take their squabbles to some other thread rather than cluttering up this one, which is about "Oldest Galaxies".

 

[Vern Reed]

The current view among scientists is that a theory must be "naturalistic" to be a proper subject for scientific investigation.

Thus, the Genesis idea that God created the universe and first life must be rejected by scientists researching these topics.

Bob, scientists are people too, and they have views of their own. They're not brainwashed into a particular mode. If the answers weren't forthcoming from current/modern science, they would look elsewhere. The fact that isn't happening (seemingly) sugggests that the current framework is more than adequate.

You're becoming more and more entrenched in this issue Bob. Step back!

I am, as you can tell from my avatar, an agnostic. I will not rule out a creator, but I will also not rule out information that, from every angle, suggests the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Vern Reed]

I would appreciate it if posters would take their squabbles to some other thread rather than cluttering up this one, which is about "Oldest Galaxies".

Or 'youngest galaxies' perhaps, eh? Eh?

 

[bob b]

Bob, scientists are people too, and they have views of their own. They're not brainwashed into a particular mode. If the answers weren't forthcoming from current/modern science, they would look elsewhere. The fact that isn't happening (seemingly) sugggests that the current framework is more than adequate.

So you agree with them that there are multiple parallel universes?

I am, as you can tell from my avatar, an agnostic. I will not rule out a creator, but I will also not rule out information that, from every angle, suggests the universe is billions of years old.

Have you ruled out the possibility that God was the one who "stretched out the heavens"?

 

[Vern Reed]

So you agree with them that there are multiple parallel universes?

Agree with a theory I know nothing about? That would be daft. The idea intrigues me though.

Have you ruled out the possibility that God was the one who "stretched out the heavens"?

Of course I haven't you wally. I just said I can't rule it out. It's called being openminded.

 

[bob b]

Agree with a theory I know nothing about? That would be daft. The idea intrigues me though.

Did you know that multiverses is an integral part of the most widely accepted versions of the Big Bang?

Of course I haven't you wally. I just said I can't rule it out. It's called being openminded.

It's good that you haven't ruled out the possibility that God created the universe and first life on Earth. Also that those who believe in Jesus Christ will get to live with Him forever.

I wonder what will be the fate of people who remain agnostic when they die?

 

[Ktoyou]

Why do people think they understand Genesis better now that it is written down than the people did before writing was invented, was it because the patriarchs were illiterate? Why does that make them wrong?

 

[noguru]

Did you know that multiverses is an integral part of the most widely accepted versions of the Big Bang?



It's good that you haven't ruled out the possibility that God created the universe and first life on Earth. Also that those who believe in Jesus Christ will get to live with Him forever.

I wonder what will be the fate of people who remain agnostic when they die?

Are you insinuatng that the desire for a certain eternal fate should be a factor in determining the best scientific explanation?

 

[Vern Reed]

Did you know that multiverses is an integral part of the most widely accepted versions of the Big Bang?

I didn't but then I don't have any bones with the Big Bang. I love the idea of multiverses.

It's good that you haven't ruled out the possibility that God created the universe and first life on Earth.

Why thank you

Also that those who believe in Jesus Christ will get to live with Him forever.

I wonder what will be the fate of people who remain agnostic when they die?

That depends on what your belief system is.

 

[bob b]

Originally Posted by bob b
"I wonder what will be the fate of people who remain agnostic when they die?"

That depends on what your belief system is.

I doubt that reality after one dies is determined by majority vote.

 

[Vern Reed]

You obviously choose to ignore my point. If you were a Muslim, what would the answer be? If you were a Buddhist, what then? A Hindu's viewpoint would of course be very different from yours. A Ba'hai practitioner? An aborigine with no knowledge of the gospel?

Stop playing dumb, Bob.

 

[bob b]

Why do people think they understand Genesis better now that it is written down than the people did before writing was invented, was it because the patriarchs were illiterate? Why does that make them wrong?

I can remember when the argument against Moses being the author of the Torah was that writing hadn't been invented yet.

When do you think writing was invented?

 

[noguru]

Why do people think they understand Genesis better now that it is written down than the people did before writing was invented, was it because the patriarchs were illiterate? Why does that make them wrong?

I don't think Genesis was meant to be a scientific text book. It was written before we as a culture had distinguished the difference between natural philosophy and metaphysics. Therefore the meaning it had to people back then involved conflating ideas within these different areas of philosophy. In this sense our understanding of these subjects has gone from nebulous to more distinct. This is a commonality with any school of thought. We can see it happening in our own lives.

 

[bob b]

You obviously choose to ignore my point. If you were a Muslim, what would the answer be? If you were a Buddhist, what then? A Hindu's viewpoint would of course be very different from yours. A Ba'hai practitioner? An aborigine with no knowledge of the gospel?

Stop playing dumb, Bob.

I wasn't playing dumb. I was simply observing that was happens to us after we die is not determined by what different people believe about the subject.